In the case of Soderstrom v. Maloney, the Virginia Court of Appeals, in an unpublished opinion, ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by modifying ex-husband's obligation rather than terminating it completely. The trial court was correct in making this ruling even though the ex-husband had retired and his income was reduced as a result. The ex-wife was of limited means, in poor health, and had limited discretionary income. Her expenses far outweighed her income and she had recently had to invade her retirement account for living expenses. Her standard of living was far below that she enjoyed during the marriage. Ex-husband still budgeted for extensive discretionary expenditures and enjoyed a higher standard of living.